It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 26
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52


People have real lives and things to do .. just because I dont jump and reply to a post .means I'm avoiding it
now to answer to your post of the graph this has no authenticity to it .. it is just a graph to me if in fact it meant anything it would be in NASA'a web site don't ya think dah??


Hmm you seem to be spending a lot of time on here for someone oh so busy!


It's nothing to do with NASA!.......why would they put it up on their website for?


As for no authenticity...........I suppose you think that the world renowned Jodrell Bank has no authenticity then???




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental
 


Why would lunar dust cover the top of the landing pads? How much would you expect there should be? How can you even see dust in that photo? It would appear to me that there would have to be a great deal of dust to settle on top of the pads just to make it out in a photograph.


Lots of things to reply to.
Here is another brilliant 'no dust' pad photo. And yes it is real, as was the last one. I include the NASA link. This is official and these are the photos that really prove that these photos were staged on Earth.



www.lpi.usra.edu...



I would expect as much dust to be on the pads as NASA believers say was thrown over the tracks from this Lunar Rover photo.



To reason that there are no tracks on the Rover because of kicked up lunar dust (as expressed by believers on this very thread) reasons that footprints around the LM would create the same (seeing as the enviroment is stable) covering of dust on the pads by being kicked up by the astronauts, as evidenced by the proximity of the clear footprints.

Something ain't right folks. You can't have it one way and then the other. Either dust is kicked up and adheres to every surface or it doesn't.

Once again a quote from astronaut who was supposedely on the moon, Mr.Cernan.



“Dust - I think probably one of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and it's restrictive friction-like action to everything it gets on.


Where is the dust kicked up by them walking that adheres to everything?

This is an obvious staged on Earth photo. And by admitting this is a possibility doesn't mean man didn't land on the moon.

IMHO Too many conspiracy theorists have taken their arguements too far when in reality the answers are the few photos that absolutely go against the grain.





edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



This is an obvious staged on Earth photo. And by admitting this is a possibility doesn't mean man didn't land on the moon.


Repeating an opinion doesn't make it true. The dust was displaced laterally by the descent stage engine, it did not billow as it did on Earth, it settled immediately, sorting itself out neatly by mass. The engines were cut quite a distance above the surface. What little dust that would have made it into the pads would have been that kicked up by the astronauts, and it would need to clear the upturned lip of the pads. There may or may not be the "right" amount of dust in the pads; at best your "evidence" is ambiguous, yet you assert your belief that it is "proof."



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The decent stage rockets by the time they approached the lunar surface at at 90º attitude only needed 2 pounds per square inch to land the lunar sensor probes under the landing pans that I again will tell you were 53 inches long, 4 and a half feet! With the parabolic ballistic curves of projectiles why would there be enough dust on top of the landing pads that would be visible from an internet photo?

This is still 7th grade science class stuff! And tell us the exact parameters of that lunar rover wheel and when the photo was taken. One would suspect the astronaut take photos before they are ready to depart after the rover was lifted from the lunar lander around to comfortable spacing to load the rest of the equipment before they took off for a ride. Tell us why we would see tracks if it hasn't moved yet. Easily handled by two men with an empty lunar weight of about 77 pounds, you see how fast they move it around from the videos posted and totally off of the surface.

Analysis of photos is a very non-data way to go about disproving something, like an eyed witness is worse than forensic evidence in a crime court case. All we gather so far are questions you want us to answer but present no other case but your interpretation of photos with no references to the background of the photos themselves, no lawyer would take that case to court. Without any hard data this discussion is over for me.


edit on 1-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental
 


Why would lunar dust cover the top of the landing pads? How much would you expect there should be? How can you even see dust in that photo? It would appear to me that there would have to be a great deal of dust to settle on top of the pads just to make it out in a photograph.


Lots of things to reply to.
Here is another brilliant 'no dust' pad photo. And yes it is real, as was the last one. I include the NASA link. This is official and these are the photos that I think look like they were staged.


www.lpi.usra.edu...



I would expect as much dust to be on the pads as NASA believers say was thrown over the tracks from this Lunar Rover photo.



To reason that there are no tracks on the Rover because of kicked up lunar dust (as expressed by believers on this very thread) reasons that footprints around the LM would create the same (seeing as the enviroment is stable) covering of dust on the pads by being kicked up by the astronauts, as evidenced by the proximity of the clear footprints.

Something ain't right folks. You can't have it one way and then the other. Either dust is kicked up and adheres to every surface or it doesn't.

Once again a quote from astronaut who was supposedely on the moon, Mr.Cernan.



“Dust - I think probably one of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and it's restrictive friction-like action to everything it gets on.


Where is the dust kicked up by them walking that adheres to everything?

This is an obvious staged on Earth photo. And by admitting this is a possibility doesn't mean man didn't land on the moon.

IMHO Too many conspiracy theorists have taken their arguements too far when in reality the answers are the few photos that absolutely go against the grain.





edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)


Hey DJ. I changed the one line you objected too... care to rationale about why there are no lunar rover tracks in the close up photo of the Lunar Rover wheel? Lots of Apollo believers have told me the tracks are covered by dust kicked up by the astronauts. Some crazy fool even suggested the astronauts were in the habit of picking thje Lunar Rover up and moving it about!

I've seen so called Lunar videos and the arcs of dust could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads. So I find that there is some sort of discrepency.

Some footsteps kick up dust... some don't. What gives?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Repeating an opinion doesn't make it true.


Repeating yourself won't make your arguements more valid.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Well, in this reply with no account of when the tire photo was taken and your absolute persistence of your inability to learn about landing rocket pressure, and surface dispersion projectile curves there seems to be no conversation on this point brought up on every single page in the last 4 days of posting. You present zero in a case with no data and time frame ,WHY?!! Because it just might blow your whole story apart.

Listen, you never get smarter the second time the mule kicks you in the head.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


Hmmmm your right ,,, haha I'm wrong so what's your point ?? oh your stupid graph ??
the graph like I said has nothing on it that says NASA right ?? does it ???

your resource home page

www.jb.man.ac.uk... ...............UM the link speaks for itself !!!!


your resouce's about us page
www.jb.man.ac.uk...

anybody can plainly see there is no where it says NASA


would you like to direct me to your NASA resouce please



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

anybody can plainly see there is no where it says NASA


would you like to direct me to your NASA resouce please


????


What don't you understand here?

Jodrell Bank is not NASA.........now what is the point you are trying to make?

If you are not too familiar with the name Jodrell Bank then perhaps you might like to read what Wiki says :
en.wikipedia.org...

(Yes I know Wiki isn't perfect but it's got enough good info on Jodrell to get you started)
edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I've seen so called Lunar videos and the arcs of dust could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads. So I find that there is some sort of discrepency.


Post the videos of astronauts kicking dust into the pads and I will acknowledge what you film directors call a "continuity error."



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



IMO Apollo Missions were all designed for lower earth orbit and above earth orbit and possible moon orbit .. and that is it.. I am not even certain they did a moon orbit around the moon but I will give them some benefit of doubt .

I know that the dreamers will all be dreamers but reality is reality .. Why it was all done ?? who knows .. they wanted to impress Russia.. And well we did .. But it wasn’t all spectacular like they said it was.

OMG I like how that one guy describes it so accurate .. as if he was Niel himself telling you about the reason there was no moon dust .. .I cant help it it that is way too funy.. rolling with laughter ..

I couldn’t agree with you more and I have been keeping track on this topic over the last 40 years and more stuff keeps surfacing so many of folks have said the same things it' everywhere .. now that is no lie when ever you type was Apollo 11 a hoax you get tons of pages ..

I have heard it all now that takes the cake .. close up of the rover yet no tracks .. uh huh sure they disappeared
is there anymore excuses ?? or reliable information to this .. I wonder .. I mean this is really a clear picture is it not .. it's not blurred .. and yet I see no moon dust on the pad or tracks ..hmmmm

interesting tho ..even Russian yahoo members have made comments that this is all fake .. I really hate to say this but I have even read in various places abroad over in euro where they disbelieve the US Apollo11 never landed on the moon so its not just us in the US its all over the globe .. that is sad
like I said I am not in this for a medal its just that there is lots of credible information on this that points to a Hoax .. can someone make me believe it isn’t ..

Id like to bring up the space suits and the material .. the ISS has better suits .. and still the artifacts the stuff they left behind .. not just Apollo 11 any of the missions ..



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


No im done you go read wiki I asked you to show me proof the graph was from NASA and you haven't



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

interesting tho ..even Russian yahoo members have made comments that this is all fake


Well I guess that's sold me!

You heard it folks......not from NASA......not from Jodrell Bank..........but Russian Yahoo members!


Damn those pesky Russian Yahoo members!

edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Logical one
 


No im done you go read wiki I asked you to show me proof the graph was from NASA and you haven't


?????

I'll say it one more time: the graph is from Jodrell bank NOT NASA, so what's the point you're trying to make?
edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental
 


Well, in this reply with no account of when the tire photo was taken and your absolute persistence of your inability to learn about landing rocket pressure, and surface dispersion projectile curves there seems to be no conversation on this point brought up on every single page in the last 4 days of posting. You present zero in a case with no data and time frame ,WHY?!! Because it just might blow your whole story apart.

Listen, you never get smarter the second time the mule kicks you in the head.


I posted two amazingly hi-res photos.
Regardless of 'data and time frame' the question I posed was very relevant and the fact you posted such a lame reply suggests I might be onto something.

Previously in this thread I was told that the Lunar Rover tracks were obliterated by astronauts walking around and kicking up dust.

The photo of the leg of the LM clearly shows many footprints around yet no dust on the pad.

So that is a discrepancy.

And Cernan's quote about dust sticking to everything adds insult to injury as dust obviously didn't adhere to the LM feet and pads.

So either Cernan is wrong, or the OS believers who say astronauts walking kick up dust are wrong, or the photos are wrong.

Like I say... stuff doesn't add up.

Now you could, an no doubt will, ignore these discrepancies and talk about something else... or you could ponder on why there are no Lunar tracks and/or no dust on LM pads.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



I've seen so called Lunar videos and the arcs of dust could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads. So I find that there is some sort of discrepency.


Post the videos of astronauts kicking dust into the pads and I will acknowledge what you film directors call a "continuity error."


Do you really want me to post videos of... like i said... astronauts kicking up "arcs of dust that could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads." ??

With your knowledge you really think they didn't kick up "arcs of dust that could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads." ??

This will be fun.



Check out nearly every footfall causes a fall of dust which... to my trained eye looks like "arcs of dust that could easily traverse the lip of the LM pads."

Would you, DJ, concur with the video that arcs of dust are being thrown up when the astronaut moves around?

Or do you see something i'm missing?

What about this one..? Are those arcs of dust of youtube compression artifacts?

How high would you say the edge of the LM pads are? I would say the arcs of dust I se in the videos are easily ghigh enough to traverse the pads. What do you think?

Is this a continuity error by NASA?




edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: spelllll

edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: found new video



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Logical one
 


No im done you go read wiki I asked you to show me proof the graph was from NASA and you haven't


?????

I'll say it one more time: the graph is from Jodrell bank NOT NASA, so what's the point you're trying to make?
edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


I understand what your saying and I said .. its just a graph .. not a reliable source .. it has no claim to it .. DO YOU GET IT YET????
another words you posted a graph where it came from was that website and for all anyone knows it could be fake or perhaps even wrong .... not a valid source .. if in fact it has something to do with NASA it would clearly say that woulnt it yeah it hasa title big deal but whatits lacking is a time an date stamp .

It dont even have a time stamp on it ..LOL not from the bank or who it is associated with .. where is the time stamp ???

here is a sample of a graph ok NOTICE AT THE BOTTOM it clearly has all the information DAH lol

www.solar-storm-warning.com...
edit on 1-6-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: forgot to include the link to a graph



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Like I say... stuff doesn't add up.

Now you could, an no doubt will, ignore these discrepancies and talk about something else... or you could ponder on why there are no Lunar tracks and/or no dust on LM pads.


You guys can discuss the minute details about the dust and tracks till the cows come home.......but what REALLY doesn't add up is the fact that 380KG of moon rock have been brought back to Earth......and yet conspiracy theorists seem to be in denial, that the only way that this could happen is by manned missions to the Moon.
edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


did you really just qoute an astronaut who was "never on the moon" to make a point about how moon dust behaves ? you kinda just made a point for the other side....

and the rover wheel pic, is it possible the rover was just deployed and just hasn't travelled anywhere yet ? is there a description of that pic from NASA ?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

I understand what your saying and I said .. its just a graph .. not a reliable source .. it has no claim to it .. DO YOU GET IT YET????
another words you posted a graph where it came from was that website and for all anyone knows it could be fake or perhaps even wrong .... not a valid source .. if in fact it has something to do with NASA it would clearly say that woulnt it yeah it hasa title big deal but whatits lacking is a time an date stamp .


This graph and the story that Jodrell bank unofficially tracked the Apollo Eagle Lander have been made public for several years and been shown on a number of tv programs.......now If it was all a fake made up story.............don't you think Jodrell Bank would have said something????

edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join